Comcastrated
@comcast.net
| reply to hobgoblin
Re: Sandvine's MSO Case Study-Reasonable Network Management?
"What would I do?"
I would communicate exactly what I am doing with my customers.
If there is a usage cap I would state it.
If I block specific types of traffic I would state it.
I would allow users to use the advertised bandwidth for any purpose they see fit within the confines of the TOS. I would then apply boost or other speed enhancements to selected traffic. I would advertise this as speed boost "Enhanced web browsing speed. Get 6/1.5mb with up to 20/2mb Enhanced web speed"
or
If it just does not work from an economical perspective. I would change the TOS to specifically exclude the use of P2P software. I would then block it (I would not do this using RST packets as I believe this to be illegal) I would only allow specific ports. I would also offer an enhanced tier or make the top tier P2P friendly. The lower tier would probably be a marketing nightmare. But they are trying to offer a limited service while selling an unlimited service. So they should come clean.
Comcasts service really is not an internet service when they start blocking certain protocols in any way including forged packets. The internet is based on (RFCs) like the TCP/IP protocol and numerous routing standards. When you start forging packets you are no longer RFC compliant. It then becomes web access and any other services they endorse. But calling it internet service is no longer accurate.
The internet is based on TCP/IP and the routing standards defined in RFC documents like RFC1058, etc.... This includes multiple types of communications based on packets like TCP, UDP, ICPM, etc... Adhering to the specifications based on RFCs has been since inception in the 1970s how one gets on the internet and becomes a part of it. The definition of the internet has been based for decades on RFC compliance and must continue to be based on compliance.
I will not say that comcast can not do what they want with their network. They can do what they want. However they have to do it while complying legally with all of the laws and regulations. Right now they are not. Hence all of the investigations. The FTC should have quite an interest in their misleading advertising. The FCC should be interested in their intentional blocking of communications. The FBI should be interested in their interstate impersonation and forgery of electronic communication. I believe there are fairly strong laws against impersonating a party across electronic communications. This makes it illegal to call someone and claim to be from their bank etc. But I believe it is applicable in this case. |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
 ·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by Comcastrated :
I would allow users to use the advertised bandwidth for any purpose they see fit within the confines of the TOS.
Would that include the part of the Terms of Use which states that subscribers are prohibited from providing network content to anybody outside of the Premises Local Area Network?
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
telcolackey
The Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA
| reply to Comcastrated
said by Comcastrated :
If it just does not work from an economical perspective. I would change the TOS to specifically exclude the use of P2P software. I would then block it How do you really block an application that is designed to "hide"? Why do you think this application was designed this way?
I think broadband needs to go to a utility model and allow for all of this traffic, but charge people if they want to open the throttle full and share the "utility" (Comcast sold them) with the world. I think people will be less generous with bits if they have to pay the true cost of p2p. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Skype
| reply to NormanS
said by NormanS  :said by Comcastrated :
I would allow users to use the advertised bandwidth for any purpose they see fit within the confines of the TOS.
Would that include the part of the Terms of Use which states that subscribers are prohibited from providing network content to anybody outside of the Premises Local Area Network? If there is a TOS that says that (and I'm sure that there is, as I've seen that quoted before, somewhere), then it's really not Internet service.
That restriction would prohibit the user from downloading a file from one site (thus it is 'network content'), and then subsequently uploading it to another (thus it is 'outside of the LAN').
Both Cox and Comcast spokespersons have said in the press that P2P traffic is not prohibited on their networks. So the point may be moot (so far).
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon USA
Are you affected by Comcast's RST forging? How to test it! -or- Read my original report. |
|
telcolackey
The Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA
1 edit | The specific section is as follows:
run programs, equipment, or servers from the Premises that provide network content or any other services to anyone outside of your Premises LAN (Local Area Network), also commonly referred to as public services or servers. Examples of prohibited services and servers include, but are not limited to, e-mail, Web hosting, file sharing, and proxy services and servers; I've highlighted what I believe is being interpreted as the ToS elements related to P2P |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| reply to telcolackey
said by telcolackey :I think broadband needs to go to a utility model and allow for all of this traffic, but charge people if they want to open the throttle full and share the "utility" (Comcast sold them) with the world. I think people will be less generous with bits if they have to pay the true cost of p2p. It's rare that I find myself agreeing with you, but I agree with you.
Cable companies are suffering because they built their networks on a web-only usage model. It was an understandable mistake, because in the late 90s when they created their assumptions, the WWW was ramping up exponentially. But if they looked a few years before that, they would see what they are seeing now -- users want to be able to upload and download.
So (to Hobgoblin, who asked a good question), if I owned an ISP and had this problem, I would add the following to the Help files:
Peer-to-Peer (P2P) file-transfer programs may impact the Comcast HSI service when used at high speeds. To ensure a good experience for everyone, adjust such background programs to upload speeds of 24 kB/s and download speeds of 128 kB/s.
If a customer does overdo it, the Comcast Abuse Dept now has something solid to tell them without having to name a "cap": use these settings to avoid any more phone calls from us.
(If they use those settings and manage to maintain those download speeds 24*7*365, then they do consume a lot of bandwidth. However, since it's DOCSIS, it's the upload bandwidth that is the constraint. The download limit may not be needed, but it's there if it is.)
Thoughts?
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon USA
Are you affected by Comcast's RST forging? How to test it! -or- Read my original report. |
|
telcolackey
The Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA
1 edit | said by funchords :It's rare that I find myself agreeing with you, but I agree with you. Cable companies are suffering because they built their networks on a web-only usage model. It was an understandable mistake, because in the late 90s when they created their assumptions, the WWW was ramping up exponentially. But if they looked a few years before that, they would see what they are seeing now -- users want to be able to upload and download. You finally see the light and then head to the dark side. 
The problem has less to do with HFC and more to do with 1) speed increases, 2) p2p and 3) Internet economics. FiOS and others also have the same economic challenges (although they won't admit it yet as their product is a "loss leader").
I tried to start a discussion on this, but the thread was locked. Here are my points:
The P2P and bandwidth debates typically are more emotional than logical. People will use corner cases of usage, their interpretation of net-neutrality, state laws, 5+ year old ad campaigns and ToS. Let me try and put some logic around the issue as I see it.
Residential Broadband service (DSL, Cable and even FiOS) speeds have been increasing over the years due to the fact that the average bandwidth cost allows for an oversubscription model which has been economical. Although the vast majority of users get this speed when they need it, they don’t run it 7x24 at the max rate and hence it doesn't cost more than they pay. This is why the business model works.
P2P (bandwidth sharing) in general changes this and operates more like running hosting services or CDNs from home. It also transfers a content $$ source (paying for bits) from the content owners (Apple, Yahoo, Google, etc) to residential users. Today, these companies pay an ISP to send the traffic through the Internet and you pay to receive it. This has been the long term payment system and the infrastructure depends on it.
• Content owners like P2P because it changes their costs to “zero” and will fight for it (with lobbying, FUD +residential voices). People need to think through the end game on this.
•Engineers find P2P interesting due to the robustness of the massive infrastructure and, with a geographic and capacity control plane, provides an efficient delivery system. However this needs to be cost modeled
•Broadband business owners find P2P challenging due to there is no clear way to properly fund Internet costs. If someone actually used, or allowed Apple to use, 100Mb of the residential bandwidth there are large costs associated with this that will need to be factored in.
As speeds increase, these factors gets more and more difficult. If P2P really does take off and is used as the primary content distribution medium for many future services, the last 2 bullets will need to be figured out for P2P to be successful. Generally, I think people on both sides of the debate need to understand all the issues.
|
|
jbob
Reach Out and Touch Someone
Premium
join:2004-04-26
Little Rock, AR
 ·Comcast
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to telcolackey
said by telcolackey :The specific section is as follows: run programs, equipment, or servers from the Premises that provide network content or any other services to anyone outside of your Premises LAN (Local Area Network), also commonly referred to as public services or servers. Examples of prohibited services and servers include, but are not limited to, e-mail, Web hosting, file sharing, and proxy services and servers; I've highlighted what I believe is being interpreted as the ToS elements related to P2P Either way Comcast has shot themselves in the foot by publically stating they do not block P2P or BitTorrent making the whole argument of "file sharing" or even if you choose to go the "Server" route as it applies to BitTorrent a mute point now. By allowing it up till now and making offical public statements to the contrary they have effectively told the public and powers to be that they do not specifically consider P2P or file sharing via BitTorrent as something that is violating the ToS. |
|
telcolackey
The Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA
| said by jbob :Either way Comcast has shot themselves in the foot by publically stating they do not block P2P or BitTorrent making the whole argument of "file sharing" or even if you choose to go the "Server" route as it applies to BitTorrent a mute point now. By allowing it up till now and making offical public statements to the contrary they have effectively told the public and powers to be that they do not specifically consider P2P or file sharing via BitTorrent as something that is violating the ToS. This is another interpretation to fit an agenda. They also say they don't proactively block illegal activity so does that mean they cannot address it if notified? |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| reply to telcolackey
That was a pretty good write-up, and I do not take issue with most of it.
The speeds didn't increase because it was economical. Long before the move to 6 Mbps, it was already economical.
The speeds increased because of competition. Many DSL providers offered a 3 Mbps tier, and the 6 Mbps tier was the response.
About 6-months to a year before the move to the 6 Mbps basic tier, Brian Roberts told investors on the quarterly earnings conference call that they were doing this because:
1. They could do it very cheaply.
2. The demand was already there, as DSL was signing up customers due to the higher tier.
3. DSL couldn't offer anything close to it.
And he was right. And despite moving to 6 Mbps tiers, despite the increased bandwidth consumption by all users over the past 18 months (not only P2P but YouTube and the like), despite the acquisitions and upgrade costs, Comcast will make roughly $25 Bn in profit this year, topping the previous years' performances of $15.9 Bn, $14.2 Bn, and $12.8 Bn.
said by telcolackey :
The problem has less to do with HFC and more to do with 1) speed increases, 2) p2p and 3) Internet economics. FiOS and others also have the same economic challenges
All, in case you didn't know: (HFC defined)
I'm not sure why you are telcolackey, you impress me more as cable knowledgeable.
The market is demonstrating that the problem has a lot to do with HFC and, in particular, its upload constraint. Cablelabs is behind the competitive ball, and FIOS is taking Cable Internet customers as a result. Cable can't touch a 20/2 tier -- soon to be a 20/20 tier. (Why a 20/20 tier? Ask Brian Roberts! Because it's competitive to do so, demand is there, and they can do it cheaply!)
quote:
People will use corner cases of usage
This is a common way to illustrate a point (especially on forums and usenet and such).
The reason the FCC gave om 2005 for not making Network Neutrality rules was that almost all of the arguments for it were "what if" scenarios. The one or two actual cases that had come up wasn't enough to describe an industry-wide problem.
quote:
(although they won't admit it yet as their product is a "loss leader")
It's a loss-leader product because they had to lay down new fiber throughout every neighborhood. CableTV companies laid new wire too, however they did that 20 years before. The little bit of work that they had to do to make it bi-directional and digital pales in comparison.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon USA
Are you affected by Comcast's RST forging? How to test it! -or- Read my original report. |
|
telcolackey
The Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA
| said by funchords :The market is demonstrating that the problem has a lot to do with HFC and, in particular, its upload constraint. Cablelabs is behind the competitive ball, and FIOS is taking Cable Internet customers as a result. Cable can't touch a 20/2 tier -- soon to be a 20/20 tier. DOCSIS actually does not have the upstream constraint people think. Most CMTS cards offer equal bandwidth (combined ports) for both upstream and downstream. On the flip side, residential historically is a downstream product and (normally) upsteam users are either running servers / commercial or have rare upstream burst needs (hence powerboost). (please no corner cases)
FIOS 20/20 is as much marketing as technology. It is the same thing cable did to DSL for so many years. FIOS cannot economically support a large number of customers running 20/20 7x24 via their ONT infrastructure.
Technically there are ways to increase capacity for the density of bandwidth requirements, but as you start bringing this level of capacity need upstream the economics start to fall appart.
said by funchords :It's a loss-leader product because they had to lay down new fiber throughout every neighborhood. CableTV companies laid new wire too, however they did that 20 years before. The little bit of work that they had to do to make it bi-directional and digital pales in comparison. Perhaps. But 20/20 will be a loss leader if people run this 7x24 no mater if it is FTTH or HFC. The regional and national costs to deliver continuous content at these speeds is not $50 / month... commercially it is more like $50 / meg (average costs for 50Mb small biz service). |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| reply to funchords
said by funchords :Comcast will make roughly $25 Bn in profit this year, topping the previous years' performances of $15.9 Bn, $14.2 Bn, and $12.8 Bn. That's gross profit, which doesn't include taxes, paid dividends, and other indirect costs. Net profit is much lower than that. Your numbers also appear to be off:
»finance.google.com/finance?fstyp···AQ:CMCSA
Year to date gross profit: is ~$14.6Bn so unless they're going to have a magical $10Bn Q42007 there's no way they're going to make $25Bn.
Compare total operating expenses to total revenue. Comcast is certainly making money, but not hand-over-fist like you are suggesting. |
|
jbob
Reach Out and Touch Someone
Premium
join:2004-04-26
Little Rock, AR
·Comcast
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to telcolackey
said by telcolackey :said by jbob :Either way Comcast has shot themselves in the foot by publically stating they do not block P2P or BitTorrent making the whole argument of "file sharing" or even if you choose to go the "Server" route as it applies to BitTorrent a mute point now. By allowing it up till now and making offical public statements to the contrary they have effectively told the public and powers to be that they do not specifically consider P2P or file sharing via BitTorrent as something that is violating the ToS. This is another interpretation to fit an agenda. They also say they don't proactively block illegal activity so does that mean they cannot address it if notified? Sorry as I have no agenda and have to disagree here. Illegal activity is a well defined subject. The ToS is written in legalese for a reason sometimes making it harder to try and interpret. I understand they way they write these things and do not have an issue. They try and cover all the bases but sometimes allow certain questionable activities to try and please the customer base as long as they do not interrupt the network for others.
They can't one minute say they don't block P2P and then turn around and say it's illegal the next. Well they could but that would probably not be the smart thing to do at this point! lol |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| reply to telcolackey
said by telcolackey :said by funchords :The market is demonstrating that the problem has a lot to do with HFC and, in particular, its upload constraint. Cablelabs is behind the competitive ball, and FIOS is taking Cable Internet customers as a result. Cable can't touch a 20/2 tier -- soon to be a 20/20 tier. DOCSIS actually does not have the upstream constraint people think. Most CMTS cards offer equal bandwidth (combined ports) for both upstream and downstream. Actually, there are upstream constraints to both FiOS and DOCSIS cable systems. They both share the same "multiple speaker" problem; within a shared access segment only one device can be transmitting at any given time. The downstream is easy because the head-end has monopolistic control over the downstream channel with no competition for "air time"; it broadcasts out and every device on the segment listens for traffic destined to them. The return path requires more technical finesse to work out how to get every device to transmit in an orderly fashion so that transmissions don't get garbled and lost. It's like being on a conference call -- if multiple people talk at the same time all conversations are lost until it gets down to the point where just one person is talking. Multiplexing technologies like TDMA work well at solving this problem, but it requires additional overhead which steals your upstream efficiency. On current DOCSIS systems that's why you have a 38mbps downstream to 10mbps upstream (DOCSIS 1.x) or 30mbps upstream (DOCSIS 2.0).
FiOS has similar limits; their current deployed configuration is limited to 622mbps downstream and 155mbps upstream. The big difference is that while cable operators have 200-500 homes per HFC node, FiOS is only divided out so 32 homes share a head-end port. It'll be interesting to watch how things work out for Verizon with the 15/15 and 20/20 symmetrical rollouts, because even if you ignore bandwidth reservations for voice services 155mbps / 32 homes is still ~4.8mbps per home. There's also that problem of selling $150 - $200 of wholesale bandwidth for $50-70/mo. If people really start using their connections as people in these forums suggest, that's going to be a big problem.
Cable could match FiOS for service with DOCSIS 3.0, but it would require much smaller node segments than what they have now. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| reply to espaeth
Overall, my effort was to show that Comcast was doing quite well. And it is.
said by espaeth :That's gross profit, which doesn't include taxes, paid dividends, and other indirect costs. Net profit is much lower than that. Right.
Net profit is the wrong figure to concentrate on, due to the non-operating or 'slushy' things it contains (advanced tax payments, amortized "goodwill," minority interest, one-time events).
We need something without all of that slush -- and you touched on it further down in your message... (stand-by)
said by espaeth : Your numbers also appear to be off: » finance.google.com/finance?fstyp···AQ:CMCSAYear to date gross profit: is ~$14.6Bn so unless they're going to have a magical $10Bn Q42007 there's no way they're going to make $25Bn. You are correct. I got my figures from »finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=CMCSA which turns out to be wrong. Google got it right.
Compare total operating expenses to total revenue. Comcast is certainly making money, but not hand-over-fist like you are suggesting.
Agreed. That's Operating Income (or Loss). That's what should have been compared. Those are hard dollars both ways.
And truth be told, we should both probably only be looking at the Internet side of the business. I don't know if Comcast breaks it down enough to do that (how do you apply the cost of "Triple Play" advertisements?).
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon USA
Are you affected by Comcast's RST forging? How to test it! -or- Read my original report. |
|
jig
join:2001-01-05
Hacienda Heights, CA
| reply to telcolackey
said by telcolackey :I think people will be less generous with bits if they have to pay the true cost of p2p. really? tell me, what is the true cost of p2p? are we talking bandwidth? then tell me the true cost of bandwidth.
be sure to compare it to the cost of bandwidth in japan and South Korea and explain the difference in price.
the money argument holds no water, charity or not. the cost to upgrade just the local infrastructure of a cable network is 2-3 months of subscriber fees, if that. i'm not going to believe that the NET profit on a subscriber line is less than 50% after the first 6 months. 1 billion or 15 billion net profit, comcast has the funds in the bank and ongoing to run their business more for the customer than for their own pocket, and that's why people are going to leave if they can.
fiber is only a loss leader if you consider the equipment costs and neglect ongoing fees (which is stupid). so it takes them 8-10 months instead of 6 to pay off the equipment, big whoop. these are the same guys who charge $70/month to have a copper pair hooked up for local service. they can take the upfront hit, just like comcast can. bandwidth costs are not the issue, and only those selling (or that believe in) fairy dust say it is.
--
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam. |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by jig :be sure to compare it to the cost of bandwidth in japan and South Korea and explain the difference in price. Cost, or price? If some of the cost can be underwritten by sources other than the residential fees, the prices can be reduced for any given costs.
Do you know what they actually charge in Japan?
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| said by NormanS :Do you know what they actually charge in Japan? 100 Mbps for $55 a month from KDDI. |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
3 edits | From your linked article:
quote:
"The Japanese think long-term," he added. "If they think they will benefit in 100 years, they will invest for their grandkids. There's a bit of national pride we don't see in the West."
The strategy is anathema in the United States, where companies like AT&T and Verizon Communications, the market leader with 1.1 million fiber subscribers, are under intense pressure from investors to justify their capital spending plans.
We have tax laws in this country which penalize companies trying to plan for the long term, and reward the short term profit.
»bbpromo.yahoo.co.jp/promotion/adsl/regular/
»bbpromo.yahoo.co.jp/promotion/hi···dex.html
I wonder how much of that is due to population density (Tokyo to Kyoto is about the half the distance as San Francisco to Los Angeles; yet NTT and KDDI must pass nearly half the population of Japan between those two cities. California has roughly 10% of the total population of the U.S.A. ATT and Comcast probably only pass 10% of the the people (in California) in 430 miles as NTT and KDDI pass (in Japan) in 230 miles.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
telcolackey
The Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA
4 edits | reply to jig
said by jig :really? tell me, what is the true cost of p2p? are we talking bandwidth? then tell me the true cost of bandwidth. Bandwidth costs sources vary for different providers. People also don't always figure in the all-in-costs (e.g. optical / spectrum upgrades) over time. In some years the costs for bits includes routers, line cards and transit costs or interconnect upgrades. On top of that there are operations staff, field staff, equip and plant maint fees, etc. When bandwidth growth is a steady ramp this is pretty easy to predict.
Most companies also plan for every X years to do major upgrades due to hitting harder limits like router chassis capacity, optical plant channel capacity or spectrum, fiber conduit capacity, etc. These are major cost hits.
During the "fiber glut" many bargain ISPs looked at these as sunk cost and sold away their capacity at very cheap rates lowering the average ISP $/mb. They were able to do this as they had "excess capacity" and growth was not as fast. In retrospect this was not very smart.
p2p does three things... First it generated a fast bandwidth consumption growth through illegal file distribution (yes some of it was legal). Second it shifted the distribution of content from a revenue source (hosting, CDN, etc) to a non-incremental-revenue generating source (residential broadband). Third, since p2p essentially makes content CDNs "free" for content providers, this has the potential of generating much faster rich content growth.
At first you may say great! However someone has to pay for this growth and a sharp increase in growth year over year shortens the cycle for major capital upgrades without the incremental revenue from hosting / CDNs.
This is something people should understand. You don't have to agree with it, but you should be open minded about the business issues.
said by jig :be sure to compare it to the cost of bandwidth in japan and South Korea and explain the difference in price. Ah... the Japan, South Korea examples. That is like comparing apple pie and sushi.
US companies operate differently from their Japanese and South Korea counterparts. The government does not pay for infrastructure. Stock holders will crucify you for a 100 year RoI (unless the alternative is failure) and being first to market on technology is not always a smart business decision.
Going in this direction in the US is about as smart as handing out subprime mortgages. |
|
